Woman has epileptic fit in Mencap charity shop and is charged for breakages.

Syl wrote:One would think a MENCAP charity shop would have had more sympathy for the poor woman.


"Sandr a Kirkham, 72, was in a Mencap shop in Congleton, Cheshire, on Monday when she fell into a display while having a seizure, cutting her foot.
As she was coming round, she was made to pay £17 for crockery that fell off the display, before being taken away in an ambulance.
Mencap said staff should not have asked for damages to be paid.
Midlands Live: Archie Spriggs: Mother to be sentenced for murder; Bottle thrown at fire engine
Mrs Kirkham, who has had epilepsy since she was a child, had been trying on sandals in the shop.
She said she didn't get the usual warnings she was going to have a seizure and collapsed into the glass display.
She added: "The gentleman did call an ambulance, because my foot was bleeding and there was blood all over the floor, but he was more interested in me paying for the goods than me having a fit.
"As I was coming round, all I could hear was: 'You've got to pay for the goods, I've got to charge you for the goods' and I was all flummoxed because I hadn't got a clue what had broke but I was just surrounded by glass."




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-43554541

Who else is going to pay?  Who do you suggest?  This comes up in civil cases all the time.  The costs are very real.  It's a zero-sum game, someone is going to lose.  Just bad luck that it was through no fault of the woman. Bad luck and no fault are often the source of damages.

Suppose she'd have had an automobile accident and did substantial property damage, or god forbid, severely injured someone.  Who pays, then?

Syl wrote:Why does the word filter change the name S A N D R A  to Sassy?
I had to put a space in to break the name up above.

I don't know, it just does. It happens to me when I try to post about Sandra Bland
and her plight.

At some point someone was screwing with sassy's name, and this was the solution. I wasn't there, but I gather this was the story.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Who else is going to pay?  Who do you suggest?  This comes up in civil cases all the time.  The costs are very real.  It's a zero-sum game, someone is going to lose.  Just bad luck that it was through no fault of the woman.  Bad luck and no fault are often the source of damages.

Suppose she'd have had an automobile accident and did substantial property damage, or god forbid, severely injured someone.  Who pays, then?

No one should have to pay, the shop can just put it down to breakages...its a charity chop for the MIND....surely they should be understanding if someone has a seizure on their premises.
People donate stuff....they can afford to lose £17 of stock surely?

Sooo...the shop pays for it.

It's mere chance that the item was of negligible cost. If, for example, the lady caused a fire and the entire building was consumed, are we still of the opinion that the shop pays? Think of it as an abstract theory of responsibility, and not in terms of the examples.

magica wrote:The woman had a fit, she was not responsible for her actions. Poor lady.

All things in the shop are second hand and I'm sure people who gave the shop the things wouldn't want the lady charged.

Some charity shop it is, it should've shown some charity to this woman!

All people are responsible for themselves.  One could easily make an argument that if she knew she was dangerous, she shouldn't have been out where she could cause damage.  That's the argument about driving with an impairment.

If you succeed in making the argument that someone in the vicinity (the charity shop) is responsible for her illness, then you have just made the argument that you are responsible for your brother's keeper. A democratic government is the people, and for sure someone is in the vicinity.

That argument is a direct link to socialism, as the government might as well pick up the tab for everyone, regardless of the damage.

magica wrote:She can't help having a fit, what should she be locked away as they were years ago?

Because, clearly she is dangerous.  There are many more dangerous activities that she might be doing when she has a fit.

A reasonable person would anticipate those and stay away from them. One is, not to be in a China Shop where she might break something when she has a fit. I feel sorry for her, but at least she's lucky she only broke some crockery.

magica wrote:How is she dangerous. The woman is shopping.

The proof is in the pudding.

magica wrote:I doubt she'll be climbing Mount Everest or skiing anytime soon.

Well, you'll have to ask her about that. She's already proven herself a danger in one setting. We could speculate on a million different situations, but she has a responsibility to exercise more caution.

magica wrote: I can't see your argument Quill.  How can she know when a fit will occur.

She can't. That is the point.

magica wrote:She has every right to go out like anyone else.

So, would you make the same argument if she had ebola? She has every right to go about her business?

If she's endangering lives, including her own, by trashing stores, she poses a danger to herself and others. If she drives, she's capable of much more damage. God forbid if she's an airline pilot.

nicko wrote:Sometimes Quill you talk a complete load of Bollocks !

Don't even try, niks. Reason is beyond you.

nicko wrote:You'd prefer them to be locked away,   or perhaps lethal injection?

Who said anything about criminal issues? This is about a civil matter. If you think a mere bystander should pay, I'll be sure to stand next to you next time I have a fit.

nicko wrote:A spokesman [sorry spokesperson]  said "she should not have been charged,  and the assistant is being told that"

I think that's very nice of her. The entire store should give away all its stock being so nice.

Lord Foul wrote:like I said elsewhere ...what else could you expect from quill, comming as he does from a country with zero concern for its citizens (unless it makes money) a country that is (and has been for years) morally bankrupt and broken

Unfortunately, rational thought is not your strong suit vic.  If the crockery were an Egyptian piece worth £1-million, your greedy Tory hands would be all over the poor lady's throat.  

The system of civil-law compensation was designed to take violence out of the equation of property disputes. And, of all things, it was invented by you Brits. But backing out of deals is the British way...look at Brexit.

Lord Foul wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Unfortunately, rational thought is not your strong suit vic.  If the crockery were an Egyptian piece worth £1-million, your greedy Tory hands would be all over the poor lady's throat.  

The system of civil-law compensation was designed to take violence out of the equation of property disputes.  And, of all things, it was invented by you Brits.  But backing out of deals is the British way...look at Brexit.

what a load of tosh, to disgu8ise american style compensation greed....

I would argue that the shop HAS to carry blame since it could reasonably forsee, by its nature of admitting the public , that such an occurrence is likely.....Especially in your idiotic hyperbole about the 1 mill quid egyption vase.......

who suggested using violence.....YOU did....the man from the busted flush........

oh...and the "deal" were backing out from vis brexit.........aint the one we signed up for.......

You're arguing the examples and missing the point.  Yes, civil-law compensation was crafted by the British, in lieu of other means of seeking compensation...notably, leading to violence.  That's historical fact, and not fancy:

Encyclopedia Britannica wrote:Common law, also called Anglo-American law, the body of customary law, based upon judicial decisions and embodied in reports of decided cases, that has been administered by the common-law courts of England since the Middle Ages. From it has evolved the type of legal system now found also in the United States and in most of the member states of the Commonwealth (formerly the British Commonwealth of Nations).

Your argument placing responsibility on the shop, is akin to general products liability law, otherwise known as 'strict-liability' law.  That holds that whatever harm arises, no matter by whose hand, the accident is a cost of doing business and so the enterprise should pay.  I'm not adverse to this, because I feel there is justice in linking compensation to profit.

Lord Foul wrote:And I think you miss entirely the whole point of being civilised british.....it MAY be that, according to strict application of law, that the woman is liable for the damage.......... however there is also the expectation amongst "the people" that fair play and care and concern for the less fortunate should also be enacted. More over in such cases as this they should indeed overide the strict interpretation of law.

Now you've got it. What I have been describing is the way it is, not the way it should be.

Personally, I believe there should be no difference between "fair play and care and concern for the less fortunate" and "strict application of law". In other words, the law should look out for the poor and less fortunate...and um, that would include Muslims. Circumstances of the poor and needy should always be taken into consideration, not only in civil law, but criminal law as well. The draconian cuts that Tories have administered to social programs are immoral and unconscionable. Privatization and profiteering should be outlawed.

But I'm a leftist. I'm surprised, but nonetheless pleased to hear you say "fair play and care and concern for the less fortunate" should be extended. I'm proud of you , vic.
It's just an extension of modern decency.

Lord Foul wrote:yeh? really, I would have thought by now that you were well aware that although R/W on some subjects, I am as left, indeed possibly more left, than you.

I know.  The entire British nation is more progressive and tolerant, as a rule, than the US.  It is my personal disappointment that the US has to deal with the south--racism, guns, violence, war mongering, white nationalism, criminalism, and so forth--while the rest of the nation would gladly join Britain in celebrating all of humanity.

As the southern mentality reaches the highest levels of government, I truly believe the country is coming apart.  They say that the nation should come together, but who wants to be in the same room with those knuckledraggers?  As I frequently say: the cops don't join the robbers.